The resistance to a D-1A playoff is 100% about money. The bowl system is profitable, which is more important to the NCAA than fairness.

I don't disagree at all, the bowl system is VERY profitable. But just because all these sports have playoffs, does not mean that it does not detour from academics.

Anyone here besides myself do D-1 athletics? I was on a "less" demanding sport, track and feild, and I still found it difficult to do everything.

But I think the real difference between the few of us that like the BCS and the ones who want a playoff is the fact that a playoff is teh only "fair" way to determine the "real" best team in your guys opinion... I just believe that is false.

The resistance to a D-1A playoff is 100% about money. The bowl system is profitable, which is more important to the NCAA than fairness.

I don't disagree at all, the bowl system is VERY profitable. But just because all these sports have playoffs, does not mean that it does not detour from academics.

Anyone here besides myself do D-1 athletics? I was on a "less" demanding sport, track and feild, and I still found it difficult to do everything.

But I think the real difference between the few of us that like the BCS and the ones who want a playoff is the fact that a playoff is teh only "fair" way to determine the "real" best team in your guys opinion... I just believe that is false.

How would you feel about the NFL going to a BCS-type system instead of the current playoff format? Would that be fair?

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

December 16th, 2007, 12:56 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

I'll answer with a question. Who is the best team in the NFL right now? There is NO question that the Patriots are no questions in a different class all by themselves. They have beaten the following division leaders:

AFC:
Indianapolis
Pittsburg
San Diego

NFC:
Dallas

That is 4 of 8 division leaders, 50%... (including themselves into the total), ALL of the AFC leaders along with 2 of the wildcard hopefulls.

They've beaten arguably the best NFC team which has beaten already arguably the second best NFC team.

Looking at the playoff picture, what if the Patriots win out and loss to any of those teams? Is that fair? In most people eyes, absolutaly. They lost when it counted most.

But after beating all those teams, we could very well see them lose to them. What more do the Patriots have to prove to anyone that they are the number one team?

The Patriots have proven beyond any other team in NFL history(almost) that they DESERVE to just get crowned the champs in the NFL. With a BCS style championship the Patriots would then be mathced up to the, most likely, Dallas Cowboys with no questions asked. But I doubt we will see both teams, each more deserving than any other team to be in the game, in the Super Bowl.

So tell me, is the playoff system really fair? Can you in all honesty tell me the playoff system is fair at all when the Patriots still have a chance to not make it into the Super Bowl?

With all of the said, the playoff system is 'A' way to crown a champ. Is the champ always the BEST team in the NFL? We talk about the BCS not having the two BEST teams in college sports yet we constaintly see two teams who are not the best teams in the NFL play in the Super Bowl.

Case in point, the AFC Championship game was by far a better matchup than the Bears vs. Indy. But because of the structure of the playoffs, the Bears wind up looking like the second best team in the NFL. EVeryone knows the AFC was WAY better than the NFC last year, the Bears didn't deserve to be there.

But everyone accepts it because playoffs are thought to be more fair. So what if OSU is the fourth or fifth best team in college football, the playoff system many a times does no better at all. You can look at any playoff scenario and see time after time where teh National Championship game does not match up the best two teams, they are only accepted as such because of the view of the playoffs fairness.

Would I want the NFL to impliment a BCS style system? No, but it isn't because it would be less fair. It is because it would change the system teh NFL has used for years. It is engrained, it is NFL football. IMO, college football is not about a playoff and it shouldn't be. It is a good system that pits two very good teams tha could easily be the matchup no matter how many times you play a playoff system(which would give you a diff matchup everytime you played it).

We can agree to disagree on which one people prefer to crown a champion, but no one can say one is more fair than the other.

I think the biggest question that many of us have is why is Div 1-A the ONLY division that does not have a playoff? The other, so-called, lessor divisions seem to be able to have a playoff and their student atheletes still have time for class. Is the NCAA trying to say that the student athletes of Div 1-A just aren't smart enough or good enough to handle a playoff format? And here I thought that Div 1-A was supposed to be the best of the NCAA....I guess I was wrong. The way I look at it is ALL of the NCAA divisions should be the same. Either they all have a BCS-type format or the all have a playoff format. There is no excuse that I have heard or can think of to explain the differences. To relate it to the NFL - considering that we all know that the AFC is the stronger conference maybe they should have the BCS-type format whereas the NFC stays with a playoff format. Doesn't make much sense to me?

As a side note, are there any other sports, Pro or collegiate that have a BCS-type format to determine the so-called best? (I honestly don't know) Why leave it up to a bumch of biased coaches and writers and some computer program to determine who the best is? Why not have it like its been done for 1000s of years....mano-a-mano and may the best survive?

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

December 16th, 2007, 3:11 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

TheRealWags wrote:

I think the biggest question that many of us have is why is Div 1-A the ONLY division that does not have a playoff? The other, so-called, lessor divisions seem to be able to have a playoff and their student atheletes still have time for class. Is the NCAA trying to say that the student athletes of Div 1-A just aren't smart enough or good enough to handle a playoff format? And here I thought that Div 1-A was supposed to be the best of the NCAA....I guess I was wrong. The way I look at it is ALL of the NCAA divisions should be the same. Either they all have a BCS-type format or the all have a playoff format. There is no excuse that I have heard or can think of to explain the differences. To relate it to the NFL - considering that we all know that the AFC is the stronger conference maybe they should have the BCS-type format whereas the NFC stays with a playoff format. Doesn't make much sense to me?

As a side note, are there any other sports, Pro or collegiate that have a BCS-type format to determine the so-called best? (I honestly don't know) Why leave it up to a bumch of biased coaches and writers and some computer program to determine who the best is? Why not have it like its been done for 1000s of years....mano-a-mano and may the best survive?

You can say the students get all they can get from the schools in those smaller divisions, but they don't.

And I am def not saying that the exact way the BCS works is 100% perfect. But from the style of the championship and how it is determined, I think they got the two teams 100% right.

But really, it all comes down to the fact that a lot of people feel nothing is fair outside of a playoff system. No matter how you put it, no matter how many bad matchups you get in the championship game, everyone just accepts the fact a playoff system is MORE fair than any other system. And that is fine, if your personnel preference is that a playoff system gives you the correct two teams in the championship game, believe what you want.

It's all about preferences, even though in reality you get the same "lousy" matchups. You got a butt kicking in the NCAA tourney for basketball for OSU and you got a buttkicking in the national championship game in football for OSU. Either way people were STILL questioning whether OSU deserved to be in either game, even if they did do it in a BCS and playoff system.

And that is fine, if your personnel preference is that a playoff system gives you the correct two teams in the championship game, believe what you want.

It's all about preferences, even though in reality you get the same "lousy" matchups. You got a butt kicking in the NCAA tourney for basketball for OSU and you got a buttkicking in the national championship game in football for OSU. Either way people were STILL questioning whether OSU deserved to be in either game, even if they did do it in a BCS and playoff system.

Steen, it's not just about "personal preferences." A playoff system is much more legitimate than the BCS system. In a playoff system at least the top school has to lose, and the bottom ranked school has to win to both stay in it, and ultimately win. Sure some people are going to think that their team was the best team, and their team got robbed early on in the playoff ultimately resulting in two teams not the best playing eachother for the final game. HOWEVER, at least their team had to lose, and at least the HAD THE CHANCE TO LOSE! Under the current system a team like USC, a team that is playing the best football in the country right now, doesn't even get a chance to show up.

Your "same lousy matchups" theory doesn't hold water either. At least there ARE matchups. Like I said, the result might be that the two best teams that people believe are the best aren't playing in the championship game, but at least they had the chance to show up.

At least the playoff system comes with the legitimacy of having to beat at least the 16th and 8th seed... This year OSU hasn't even played an opponent ranked higher than 23 after the final results are in... According to OSU Washington was their toughest game, and Washington finished UN RANKED. It is absolutely disgusting that OSU is playing in the national championship game this year given who they have beat, who they have lost to, and who other teams have lost to (much higher ranked teams).

December 16th, 2007, 10:03 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

wjb, that is completely false IMO, I stand by what I said earlier. If you think the Bears and the Colts were the two top teams last year in the NFL I'm amazed... The Bears got to the Super Bowl by default because the NFC sucked. In a BCS style compotition, the Pats and Indy would have played and that would be a legitimate SuperBowl. But because of the playoff style format, no team from the same conf can ever play each other even if they are the best 2 teams.

IMO, the "reasons" you posted are why people "feel" it si more fair. But in that system, there are just as many unfair opportunities as the BCS. I've stated them and they happen all the time.

If you can say, well they lost when it mattered, than in the BCS style every game matters. If WV wanted in the big game, who cares, they lost when it mattered because every game matters...

wjb, that is completely false IMO, I stand by what I said earlier. If you think the Bears and the Colts were the two top teams last year in the NFL I'm amazed... The Bears got to the Super Bowl by default because the NFC sucked. In a BCS style compotition, the Pats and Indy would have played and that would be a legitimate SuperBowl. But because of the playoff style format, no team from the same conf can ever play each other even if they are the best 2 teams.

IMO, the "reasons" you posted are why people "feel" it si more fair. But in that system, there are just as many unfair opportunities as the BCS. I've stated them and they happen all the time.

If you can say, well they lost when it mattered, than in the BCS style every game matters. If WV wanted in the big game, who cares, they lost when it mattered because every game matters...

It's not completely false... It doesn't matter that the two top teams didn't play eachother in the NFL. You wouldn't need a "conference" set-up in the NCAA, which is what caused the problem in the NFL. Furthermore, at least in the NFL the two best teams were FORCED TO CROSS PATHES... It is true that quite possibly Indy and NE were the best teams, but they played eachother.... And if a situation arose where one of them got knocked out... at least they had the OPPORTUNITTY to play eachother.

Case in point... you compared it to the NFL, not me... It would be like the season stopping after week 8, the Lions being 6-2, other teams having a similar or even better record, and they somehow get to play in the championship game... THAT is the situation we have now... At least the playoff situation is somewhat legitimate and fair, and, like I said, without conference bias, it is hard to argue that it isn't TOTALLY legitimate and fair.

December 17th, 2007, 9:44 am

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

wjb21ndtown wrote:

steensn wrote:

wjb, that is completely false IMO, I stand by what I said earlier. If you think the Bears and the Colts were the two top teams last year in the NFL I'm amazed... The Bears got to the Super Bowl by default because the NFC sucked. In a BCS style compotition, the Pats and Indy would have played and that would be a legitimate SuperBowl. But because of the playoff style format, no team from the same conf can ever play each other even if they are the best 2 teams.

IMO, the "reasons" you posted are why people "feel" it si more fair. But in that system, there are just as many unfair opportunities as the BCS. I've stated them and they happen all the time.

If you can say, well they lost when it mattered, than in the BCS style every game matters. If WV wanted in the big game, who cares, they lost when it mattered because every game matters...

It's not completely false... It doesn't matter that the two top teams didn't play eachother in the NFL. You wouldn't need a "conference" set-up in the NCAA, which is what caused the problem in the NFL. Furthermore, at least in the NFL the two best teams were FORCED TO CROSS PATHES... It is true that quite possibly Indy and NE were the best teams, but they played eachother.... And if a situation arose where one of them got knocked out... at least they had the OPPORTUNITTY to play eachother.

Case in point... you compared it to the NFL, not me... It would be like the season stopping after week 8, the Lions being 6-2, other teams having a similar or even better record, and they somehow get to play in the championship game... THAT is the situation we have now... At least the playoff situation is somewhat legitimate and fair, and, like I said, without conference bias, it is hard to argue that it isn't TOTALLY legitimate and fair.

So the potential of the Patriots beating any legitimate AFC team already in the regular season, but still has a chance to loss it all in their first playoff game, cast no doubt on how fair the playoffs are? Once again, I am not against playoffs,I just think the BCS does just as good of a job that a playoff system would crowing a "championship" team.

wjb, that is completely false IMO, I stand by what I said earlier. If you think the Bears and the Colts were the two top teams last year in the NFL I'm amazed... The Bears got to the Super Bowl by default because the NFC sucked. In a BCS style compotition, the Pats and Indy would have played and that would be a legitimate SuperBowl. But because of the playoff style format, no team from the same conf can ever play each other even if they are the best 2 teams.

IMO, the "reasons" you posted are why people "feel" it si more fair. But in that system, there are just as many unfair opportunities as the BCS. I've stated them and they happen all the time.

If you can say, well they lost when it mattered, than in the BCS style every game matters. If WV wanted in the big game, who cares, they lost when it mattered because every game matters...

It's not completely false... It doesn't matter that the two top teams didn't play eachother in the NFL. You wouldn't need a "conference" set-up in the NCAA, which is what caused the problem in the NFL. Furthermore, at least in the NFL the two best teams were FORCED TO CROSS PATHES... It is true that quite possibly Indy and NE were the best teams, but they played eachother.... And if a situation arose where one of them got knocked out... at least they had the OPPORTUNITTY to play eachother.

Case in point... you compared it to the NFL, not me... It would be like the season stopping after week 8, the Lions being 6-2, other teams having a similar or even better record, and they somehow get to play in the championship game... THAT is the situation we have now... At least the playoff situation is somewhat legitimate and fair, and, like I said, without conference bias, it is hard to argue that it isn't TOTALLY legitimate and fair.

So the potential of the Patriots beating any legitimate AFC team already in the regular season, but still has a chance to loss it all in their first playoff game, cast no doubt on how fair the playoffs are? Once again, I am not against playoffs,I just think the BCS does just as good of a job that a playoff system would crowing a "championship" team.

No it doesn't cast any doubt, because they still have to play the game and win. In the BCS, OSU sat home and did nothing, while the teams ahead of them lost, so voila they're in the national title. Georgia also sat home and did nothing while the teams ahead of them (except OSU) lost, but they're not in the title game. Same with Kansas. I'm not saying OSU doesn't deserve to be there or that the other teams do, but the fact is that none of them even played a game to decide who would be playing for the championship. In a playoff, if you win, you move on. Lose and go home. Simple as that.

December 17th, 2007, 5:13 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

No it doesn't cast any doubt, because they still have to play the game and win. In the BCS, OSU sat home and did nothing, while the teams ahead of them lost, so voila they're in the national title. Georgia also sat home and did nothing while the teams ahead of them (except OSU) lost, but they're not in the title game. Same with Kansas. I'm not saying OSU doesn't deserve to be there or that the other teams do, but the fact is that none of them even played a game to decide who would be playing for the championship. In a playoff, if you win, you move on. Lose and go home. Simple as that.

But you can say the same thing about the BCS, lose games and you don't move on, win games and you do move on. But in this case it is the regular season. If any of those teams wanted to be in the national championship then they shouldn't of lost 2 games. You can say it wasn't fair, but the BCS chose the correct two teams. All a playoff system does is create more games that ease the doubts of some people, nothing more.

The NFL has a system set up in which a team controls its own destiny from day one. If your team wins a lot, your team can make the playoffs. The more your team wins, the more pressure is on your team to continue to win. Dealing with this pressure is part of the game. If you lose in the playoffs, even if you beat the team during the season, that team is better than your team. That team was better prepared to deal with the pressure of the playoffs.

If the Pats go 16-0 and lose in the playoffs, then it proves that they are not the best team. If they were the best, they would win when the pressure is on.

December 17th, 2007, 11:19 pm

wjb21ndtown

mwill2 wrote:

The best team wins the Super Bowl every year. Here's why:

The NFL has a system set up in which a team controls its own destiny from day one. If your team wins a lot, your team can make the playoffs. The more your team wins, the more pressure is on your team to continue to win. Dealing with this pressure is part of the game. If you lose in the playoffs, even if you beat the team during the season, that team is better than your team. That team was better prepared to deal with the pressure of the playoffs.

If the Pats go 16-0 and lose in the playoffs, then it proves that they are not the best team. If they were the best, they would win when the pressure is on.

I agree... The fact that a 16-0 team loses in the playoffs (they couldn't lose in the first round Steen), casts NO doubt on which team is the best team. The favorite team plays with home field advantage. If your team loses at home, in the playoffs, they deserve to go home NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID IN THE REGULAR SEASON.

Additionally, you can attack the play-off system as much as you want, but you can't over-come the arbitrary nature of the BCS, and the fact that a team doesn't even have to play a TOP 20 TEAM to make the Championship game, while there are other teams that HAVEN'T LOST to teams ranked outside the top 20, and they're sitting at home...

Az State hasn't lost to anyone ranked worse than 11 (USC) while OSU hasn't BEATEN anyone ranked higher than 23 (end of the season rankings for both teams, which is the most fair ranking, as all of the games have been played). It is nothing short of disgusting that a team is sent home for losing two games to competition that is GREATER THAN ANY TEAM THAT THE ALLEGED #1 teams played ALL SEASON.

The playoff system eliminates that, hands down. The playoff system allows teams to play a good, tough schedule all year long, and show the public GOOD FOOTBALL, not an entire season CRAP GAMES a team SHOULD win, and still reward them with a national championship game. The current system cuts against that, and rewards mediocrity. It truely is a shame.

December 18th, 2007, 1:53 am

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

mwill2 wrote:

The best team wins the Super Bowl every year. Here's why:

The NFL has a system set up in which a team controls its own destiny from day one. If your team wins a lot, your team can make the playoffs. The more your team wins, the more pressure is on your team to continue to win. Dealing with this pressure is part of the game. If you lose in the playoffs, even if you beat the team during the season, that team is better than your team. That team was better prepared to deal with the pressure of the playoffs.

If the Pats go 16-0 and lose in the playoffs, then it proves that they are not the best team. If they were the best, they would win when the pressure is on.

I completely disagree. You think the playoffs are more important because that is the way the system is. With a BCS style system, those regular season games become THE important pressure filled games. All you are doing is moving the importance and pressure to the regular season.

I am def not saying the BCS is perfect, all I am saying is the playoff system isn't perfect either. It is just an accepted system because it does force the better teams to play each other. But a lose and you r out system has flaws no matter how you look at it.

I completely disagree. You think the playoffs are more important because that is the way the system is. With a BCS style system, those regular season games become THE important pressure filled games. All you are doing is moving the importance and pressure to the regular season.

I am def not saying the BCS is perfect, all I am saying is the playoff system isn't perfect either. It is just an accepted system because it does force the better teams to play each other. But a lose and you r out system has flaws no matter how you look at it.

It is all about your persespective of what is "fair."

Correct! (bolded info only), and it REWARDS teams that have weak schedules, and PUNISHES teams that have hard schedules, which is why it isn't fair. If there were only 25 teams and they all played eachother, you'd have a point. The fact that teams skate through without playing anyone makes it untrue.

It isn't "the playoffs are more fair" because that's the system that "is" in professional sports, the playoffs are USED by professional sports because that is the system that IS most fair. It is the system that puts thetop teams AGAINST EACHOTHER. (Good job at ducking my previous post by the way)